Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Youth reform - poll
But these 2xSD players or ATTS 3xSD should be reduced by ME which they wont touch (more relevance to 2nd skills) or another way that dont affect all the players
I am saying this because if you try to penalize all the players, then we might have very bad MIDS, only the stars would be good enough to enjoy the game, also it will encurage people to continue playing with 2 mids or maybe one? thisgame already penalize a lot the mids (or in favor of DEF-ATTs teams), thats why most of the top games are tenis games 5 vs 5 defenders, even 6 Defs some teams
I just hope they get a good solution on youths, bring back useful youths and remove the irreal super stars
I am saying this because if you try to penalize all the players, then we might have very bad MIDS, only the stars would be good enough to enjoy the game, also it will encurage people to continue playing with 2 mids or maybe one? thisgame already penalize a lot the mids (or in favor of DEF-ATTs teams), thats why most of the top games are tenis games 5 vs 5 defenders, even 6 Defs some teams
I just hope they get a good solution on youths, bring back useful youths and remove the irreal super stars
What if you could see the skills of the youth team, but weren't able to calculate talent?
What if level is calculated without stamina and all youths are pulled in poor stamina
Frankly I'd argue that pace and stamina shouldn't be trainable. They should be built into the player from the start and erode as they age.
As far as the youth matches, they're pointless unless you can see the skills. There's no point changing the youths without starting with that.
As far as the youth matches, they're pointless unless you can see the skills. There's no point changing the youths without starting with that.
I dont get it, so all the players should come out with same top stamina level?
They are planning to delete stamina and change it by „power bar” that will go down after each game and recover with time
Yes, at the moment all youths should come out with 0/same stamina.
Yes, at the moment all youths should come out with 0/same stamina.
I'm not sure this "stamina bar" will be good. It might be a tragedy.
Look how many games a week there are now. They want to add international Cup as another game.
2x league, 1x national cup, 1x international cup. 4 games a week, I assume it will be impossible to play as many games with same squad. So you will actually need 17-18 players in your team for rotation.
I just hope they won't make it they way that lower "stamina bar" = higher chance for injury.
Look how many games a week there are now. They want to add international Cup as another game.
2x league, 1x national cup, 1x international cup. 4 games a week, I assume it will be impossible to play as many games with same squad. So you will actually need 17-18 players in your team for rotation.
I just hope they won't make it they way that lower "stamina bar" = higher chance for injury.
I was going to mention that but didnt want to go off topic
In sk, ideas are usually good, but when you see the combo of ideas (implementation on new context) it is more focused on punishments
about removing stamina on youths would be great as long as they preserve the youth levels (bell curve), meaning same sum of skills as it is now
In sk, ideas are usually good, but when you see the combo of ideas (implementation on new context) it is more focused on punishments
about removing stamina on youths would be great as long as they preserve the youth levels (bell curve), meaning same sum of skills as it is now
With more medium players and 2-3 extra training spots it could be done
Everything "could be done" properly, but you see how they do things here every time the change or add something
@neroazurro
when you see the combo of ideas (implementation on new context) it is more focused on punishments
THIS
every time I write with Raul I try to convey this message: they need to make people WANT to do something not MAKE them or PUNISH them
@neroazurro
when you see the combo of ideas (implementation on new context) it is more focused on punishments
THIS
every time I write with Raul I try to convey this message: they need to make people WANT to do something not MAKE them or PUNISH them
about removing stamina on youths would be great as long as they preserve the youth levels (bell curve), meaning same sum of skills as it is now
This will not happen. The devs are quite clear that they do not want to increase the average level of the players in any way.
This will not happen. The devs are quite clear that they do not want to increase the average level of the players in any way.
All the last proposals (Raul) will drastically improves juniors draws and values. They finally listened to us, after 2 years. After that, it’s all depend on execution.
My main concern is that devs might take months (years) to repair juniors when a simple operation could just quick fix the current system.
As @Terrion said the main problem is still the 'gauss' distribution (most worthless juniors, rare goods).
Just reducing the ranges in draws (remove lowers starting levels, at least 12 weeks, remove 18y starting level, remove talent above 5.0) is a simple move to get less worthless draws and “flatten” the curve.
It can be done in 1 day working without introducing any new codes. But I'm afraid that this small step is not the devs' option.
(edited)
My main concern is that devs might take months (years) to repair juniors when a simple operation could just quick fix the current system.
As @Terrion said the main problem is still the 'gauss' distribution (most worthless juniors, rare goods).
Just reducing the ranges in draws (remove lowers starting levels, at least 12 weeks, remove 18y starting level, remove talent above 5.0) is a simple move to get less worthless draws and “flatten” the curve.
It can be done in 1 day working without introducing any new codes. But I'm afraid that this small step is not the devs' option.
(edited)
There have to be fair share of duff talents as well.
Has to be some sort of analysis and process from the manager.
I like the idea of increasing minimum time in youth school.
I would keep it 16,17,18 for entry ages, most 18yo will be rejected for established teams but that's ok.
Cannot swing the other way to majority of youths being useful. That's a very bad idea. Will be too many good prospects. Logical Supply/Demand will mean devaluing youths.
The reform was a way of getting money spent from the richer teams and giving a little control on some aspects of the system.
The system would still work with zero investment just less control.
Has to be some sort of analysis and process from the manager.
I like the idea of increasing minimum time in youth school.
I would keep it 16,17,18 for entry ages, most 18yo will be rejected for established teams but that's ok.
Cannot swing the other way to majority of youths being useful. That's a very bad idea. Will be too many good prospects. Logical Supply/Demand will mean devaluing youths.
The reform was a way of getting money spent from the richer teams and giving a little control on some aspects of the system.
The system would still work with zero investment just less control.
If it requires more investment, it's a bad idea.
If it leads to more good youths, it's a bad idea.
The fix is not to lose 19+ but to make 16-18 less valuable so the skill gap closes. By lowering the ceiling, you end up with more players worth having across the range.
It would also eventually bring club ratings closer together because the 80+ players would be much rarer.
If you want to end pointless youths, just show the damn skills.
If it leads to more good youths, it's a bad idea.
The fix is not to lose 19+ but to make 16-18 less valuable so the skill gap closes. By lowering the ceiling, you end up with more players worth having across the range.
It would also eventually bring club ratings closer together because the 80+ players would be much rarer.
If you want to end pointless youths, just show the damn skills.